This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2012. The result of the discussion was redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. |
The Combatant Status Review section had a subsection "testimony" that i have removed for the following reasons: 1) I do not see the information is rightly placed under CSRT subsection "testimony". 2) The introduction does not make clear the real source for the text. 3) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 4) The introduction text presents this information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 5) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 6) The introduction text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this in the way it has been done here. Please discuss. IQinn ( talk) 08:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is one of a series that had a number of valid and useful wikilinks removed with an edit summary "unlink interpretation of questionable source". I don't think this is a sufficient explanation, and I don't think this removal of wikilinks was a good idea.
Since I raised this issue the contributor who removed several thousand wikilinks in a series of 250 edits listed here, has asserted they already sufficiently explained these excisions.
I have told that contributor multiple times, and I repeat here, that I accept, at face value, that they honestly believe they have sufficiently explained themselves. All I ask in return is that they accept that after checking everything they have written I can not find a meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanation for the excisions, so I ask that they rephrase their telling argument, of offer diffs to where they originally made the telling argument, or cut and paste the key passages from their telling argument.
When I raised this issue at WP:ANI one contributor told me WP:SOFIXIT. If no meaningful, substantive, policy based explanation is offered in a reasonable period of time I think I am entitled to restore the wikilinks in the following passage. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
|
Certain tags require explanation on the talk page.
This edit added
{{
POV}}
{{
cleanup-reorganize}}
{{
notability|Biographies}}
{{
undue}}
When instantiated {{ POV}} tells readers they can find the tag placer's explanation on the talk page. No explanation has been provided.
{{ Undue}}, when instantiated, says:
It seems to me this tag too implies that the editor who placed the tag has explained their concern. Geo Swan ( talk) 03:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
because the article is entirely from the US govt. Point of view and the information it released about the prisoners to news media.{{
undue}}
because The incident of trial/containment are explained in great detail. and saying only a line or two about the Biography of the person.
|
|
“POV because the article is entirely from the US govt. Point of view and the information it released about the prisoners to news media.”
This recent edit excised 2K worth of references, with the edit summary “removed WP:BOMBARD”. A subsequent edit, by the same contributor removed a passage of 400 bytes, with the edit summary “Temporary Asylum in Palau: Original research not supported by the sources”.
I reverted these two edits, with the edit summary “revert referencectomy -- see talk”.
In my opinion that second edit summary used unnecessarily inflammatory language. Instances when references don't substantiate some aspect of the text could be original research, but there are other explanations. A {{ cn}} tag is probably more appropriate.
The informationectomy followed closely after the referencectomy. The reference that substantiated the passage may have been one in the referencectomy. Exciser didn't leave a note here on the talk page explaining what they thought was not substantiated.
With regard to WP:BOMBARD -- it is an essay, not a policy. I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 97#Should we create a new namespace, for essays? [1]. I think everyone there agreed citing essays as if they were policies is a serious problem.
I think the advice in Bombard is aimed at contributors who might be including references which are too similar to one another. Contributors who think some other contributor have other options for voicing this concern. I was going to say {{ linkfarm}} and {{ Too many references}} were good choices. But {{ linkfarm}} is for too many “External links”, while Too many references was deleted, because most who weighed in there thought we could never have too many good references.
Several who weighed in at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 21#Template:Too many references distinguished between the value of lots of good references, and the addition of redundant references -- as when multiple newspapers all run essentially identical stories from a single wire service. But the references removed in this referencectomy weren't all from a single wire service. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abdul Ghappar Abdul Rahman redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2012. The result of the discussion was redirect to Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay. |
The Combatant Status Review section had a subsection "testimony" that i have removed for the following reasons: 1) I do not see the information is rightly placed under CSRT subsection "testimony". 2) The introduction does not make clear the real source for the text. 3) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 4) The introduction text presents this information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 5) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 6) The introduction text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor. I have strong concerns to present this in the way it has been done here. Please discuss. IQinn ( talk) 08:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is one of a series that had a number of valid and useful wikilinks removed with an edit summary "unlink interpretation of questionable source". I don't think this is a sufficient explanation, and I don't think this removal of wikilinks was a good idea.
Since I raised this issue the contributor who removed several thousand wikilinks in a series of 250 edits listed here, has asserted they already sufficiently explained these excisions.
I have told that contributor multiple times, and I repeat here, that I accept, at face value, that they honestly believe they have sufficiently explained themselves. All I ask in return is that they accept that after checking everything they have written I can not find a meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanation for the excisions, so I ask that they rephrase their telling argument, of offer diffs to where they originally made the telling argument, or cut and paste the key passages from their telling argument.
When I raised this issue at WP:ANI one contributor told me WP:SOFIXIT. If no meaningful, substantive, policy based explanation is offered in a reasonable period of time I think I am entitled to restore the wikilinks in the following passage. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
|
Certain tags require explanation on the talk page.
This edit added
{{
POV}}
{{
cleanup-reorganize}}
{{
notability|Biographies}}
{{
undue}}
When instantiated {{ POV}} tells readers they can find the tag placer's explanation on the talk page. No explanation has been provided.
{{ Undue}}, when instantiated, says:
It seems to me this tag too implies that the editor who placed the tag has explained their concern. Geo Swan ( talk) 03:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
POV}}
because the article is entirely from the US govt. Point of view and the information it released about the prisoners to news media.{{
undue}}
because The incident of trial/containment are explained in great detail. and saying only a line or two about the Biography of the person.
|
|
“POV because the article is entirely from the US govt. Point of view and the information it released about the prisoners to news media.”
This recent edit excised 2K worth of references, with the edit summary “removed WP:BOMBARD”. A subsequent edit, by the same contributor removed a passage of 400 bytes, with the edit summary “Temporary Asylum in Palau: Original research not supported by the sources”.
I reverted these two edits, with the edit summary “revert referencectomy -- see talk”.
In my opinion that second edit summary used unnecessarily inflammatory language. Instances when references don't substantiate some aspect of the text could be original research, but there are other explanations. A {{ cn}} tag is probably more appropriate.
The informationectomy followed closely after the referencectomy. The reference that substantiated the passage may have been one in the referencectomy. Exciser didn't leave a note here on the talk page explaining what they thought was not substantiated.
With regard to WP:BOMBARD -- it is an essay, not a policy. I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 97#Should we create a new namespace, for essays? [1]. I think everyone there agreed citing essays as if they were policies is a serious problem.
I think the advice in Bombard is aimed at contributors who might be including references which are too similar to one another. Contributors who think some other contributor have other options for voicing this concern. I was going to say {{ linkfarm}} and {{ Too many references}} were good choices. But {{ linkfarm}} is for too many “External links”, while Too many references was deleted, because most who weighed in there thought we could never have too many good references.
Several who weighed in at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 21#Template:Too many references distinguished between the value of lots of good references, and the addition of redundant references -- as when multiple newspapers all run essentially identical stories from a single wire service. But the references removed in this referencectomy weren't all from a single wire service. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)